Legal Rights jurisprudence notes

There can be on duty without a right and According to Hibbert “a right is one person’
capacity of obliging others to do or forbear by means not of his own strength but by the
strength of a third party. If such third parts is God, the right is Divine. If such third parts is
the public generally acting though opinion, the right is moral. If such third parts is the stale
acting directly or indirectly, the right is legal.” 

Definition Of Legal Right

The term legal right has been used in two senses: 
Restricted Or Popular Sense:
According to Gray: A legal is that powers which a man has to take a person or person do or
refrain form doing a certain act or certain acts, so far as the power arises form society
imposing a legal duty upon a person or persons. 
Wider Sense:
In a wide sense, legal right include any legally recognized interest whether it corresponds to
a legal duty or not. It is an addition or benefit conferred upon a person by a rule of law. 

Kinds Of Legal Rights:

Following are the kinds of legal rights:
 Perfect right
 Imperfect right
 Real And Personal Rights
 Rights In Rem And Rights In Personam
 Proprietary And Personal Rights
 Inheritable And Uninheritable Rights
 Rights In Repropria And Rights In Re Aliena
 Principal And Accessory Rights
 Legal And Equitable Rights
 Primary And Secondary Rights
 Public And Private Rights
 Vested And Contingent Rights
 Servient And Dominant Rights
 Municipal And International Rights
 Rights At Rest And Rights In Motion
 Ordinary And Fundamental Rights
 Jus Ad Rem

Perfect right:
According to salmond, a perfect right is one which corresponds to a perfect duty I .e., which
is enforced by law.
Example:
A contract specically enforceable through the Court of law is an example of perfect right. 
Imperfect right:
An imperfect right is that which is recognized by law but cannot be enforced by law due to
some impediment. These may be turn into perfect rights.
 Positive right: 
A positive right corresponds positive duty and the person subject to the duty is bound to
do something.
 Negative right: 
Negative right corresponds to negative duties. The enjoyment of negative rights is
complete unless such interference takes place.

Real And Personal Rights:

 Real right:
According to salomond, a real right corresponds to a duty imposed upon persons in
general. It available against whole word. Real rights are generally a negative rights as
the duties which can be expected form the whole world are of a negative character.
Example:
I have a right to be deprived of my life is a real right as it is available against the whole
world.
 Personal right:
A personal right corresponds to a duty imposed upon determinate individuals. It against
a particular person. Personal rights are generally positive right as it imposes a duty on a
particular person to do something.
Example:
I have a personal right to receive compensation form any individual who is any harms
me.

Rights In Rem And Rights In Personam:

 Rights in Rem:
It is derived form the Roman term action in Rem” . It is available the whole world
Examples are rights of ownership and possession. My right of possession and ownership
is protected by law against all those who those may interfere with the same.
 Rights in Personam:
It is derived form the Roman term “ action in personam,” Right in personam corresponds
to duty imposed upon determinate persons.
Example: 
Rights under a contract are right in Personam as the parties to the contract alone are
bound by it.

Proprietary And Personal Rights:

 Proprietary Right:
The proprietary rights of a person include his estate, his assets and his property in many
forms. They have some economic or monetary value. They possess both judicial and
economic importance.
 Example:
The right to debt, the right to goodwill etc.
'
 Personal right:
Personal right pertain to man, s status or standing in the law. They promote the man, s
well being. Personal rights possess merely judicial importance.
Example:
Right to life, reputation etc are personal rights.

Inheritable And Uninheritable Rights:

 Inheritable Rights:
Inheritable rights are those which survives its owners.
Example:
‘A’ dies leaves his property him ‘B’ his legal heir becomes owner of such property. This is
an inheritable right.
 Uninheritable right:
A right is uninheritable if it dies with its owners e. g. personal rights die with its owner and
cannot be inherit.

Rights In Repropria And Rights In Re Aliena:

 Rights in Re Propria:
Rights in Re propria are rights in one, s own property. These are complete rights to
which other right can be attached.
Example:
The owner of a chattel has a right in re propria over it.
 Right in Re aliena:
Rights is Re aliena are rights over the property of another person. These rights derogate
form the rights of another person and add to the rights of their holder.
Example:
My right of way across the land another person is a right re aliena.

Principal And Accessory Rights:

 Principal rights
Principal rights exist independently of other rights. Accessory rights are appurtenant to
other rights and they have a beneficial on the principal rights.
Example:
‘X’ owes money to ‘Y’ and he executes a mortgage deed in favour of ‘Y’. the debt is the
principal right and the security in the form of mortgage is the accessory right.

Legal And Equitable Rights:

 Legal Rights:
Legal rights are those which were recognized by common Law Court e. g., right to vote
etc.
 Equitable Rights:
Equitable rights are those which were recognized by the Court of chancery.
Example:
The right of the mortgagor to redeem the property is regarded as a creation of the Courts
of equity and is an equitable right knows as the equity of redemption.

Primary And Secondary Rights:

 Primary Rights:
Primary rights are also called antecedent, sanctioned or enjoyment rights. These are
those rights which are independent of a wrong having been committed. They exist for
own sake. They are antecedent to be wrongful act or omission.
Example:
Right of reputation, Right to life etc.
 Secondary Rights:
Secondary rights are also called sanctioning, restitutory or remedial rights. Secondary
rights are a part of the machinery provided by the state of the redress of injury done to
the primary rights. Their necessity arises on account of the fact that primary rights are
very often violated by the persons.
Example:
Rights to obtain compensation for defamation to person.

Public And Private Rights: Public rights:

 Public rights:
A public right is possessed by every member of the public. It is between a state and the
private individual e. g. , right to vote etc.
 Private right:
A private right is concerned only with the individuals. Both the parties connected with the
right are private persons e.g., contract entered into by two individuals.

Vested And Contingent Rights:

 Vested right:
A vested is a right in right in respect of which all events necessary to vest it completely in
the owner have happened. No other conditions remains to be satisfied. 
Example:
If a valid deed of transfer is executed by ;A; in favour of ‘B’, ‘B’ acquires a vested right.
 Contingent right:
According to paton when part of the in vestitive acts have occurred, the right is
contingent until the appening of all the facts on which the title depends.
Example:
‘A’ executes a deed in favour of ‘B’ according to which he entitles to the possession of
certain property when attains the age of 21, the right is contingent right and it will be
vested only when he attains the age of 21.s
Servient And Dominant Rights:
A servient right is one which is subject to an encumbrance. The encumbrance which
derogates form it may be contrasted as dominant.
Example:
“X” as the owner of certain house a right of way over the land of ‘Y’ , his neighbor. The
house of ‘X’ is the dominant heritage and ‘X’ is the dominant owner. The house of ‘Y’ is the
servient heritage and ‘Y’ is the servient owner. 

Municipal And International Rights:

 Municipal rights:
Municipal right are conferred by the law of a country, it is enjoyed by the individuals living
in a country.
 International rights:
International rights are conferred by international law. The subject of the International
rights are the persons recognized as such by International law.

Rights At Rest And Rights In Motion:

According to Holland, when a right is stated with reference to its ‘orbit’ and its “
infringement’, it is a right at rest. “Orbit’ means the extent of advantages conferred by such
right and infringement means an act which interference with the enjoyment of those
advantages. Causes by which rights are either connected or disconnected with persons are
discussed under rights in motion. 

Ordinary And Fundamental Rights:

Some rights are ordinary and some are fundamental rights. The distinction between the two
lies that fundamental rights are often guaranteed by the onstitution i. e., right to life, liberty
etc. 

Jus Ad Rem:
A jus ad rem is a right to right. It is always a right in personam.
Example:
If ‘A’ sell his house to ‘B’. ‘B’ acquires a right against ‘A’ to have the house transferred to
himself. 

Conclusion:
To conclude, I can say, that legal rights are those which are conferred by the state on
certain individuals and imposes corresponding duties on others. It is enforced by the
physical force of the state. It is been classified into different kinds according to their scope
by various authors. 
INTRODUCTION
The development of society is credited to the constant evolution of law. When people
come into contact with each other, everyone has certain rights and duties obligated
towards one another. A right and duty are the pillars of law, and are hence
consequently protected by it. Both these concepts are intertwined. The concepts of
legal rights and duties in Jurisprudence are elucidated below.
DEFINITION OF RIGHT

The definition of legal rights have been propounded by several famous legal
philosophers. Some definitions are as follows –
1. John Austin – According to Austin, “A party has a right when another or others
are bound or obliged by law to do or forbear towards or in regard of him”. This
definition was not widely accepted. It was stated by John Stuart Mill that the
act referred by Austin should be in the interest of the person who can be said to
have the right. He illustrated with an example by stating that when a prisoner is
sentenced to death,the jailer is bound to execute him. Does this mean that the
convict has the right to be hanged?
2. Rudolf Von Jhering – Jhering defined rights as “legally protected interests”. The law does
not protect all such interests. The interests of men conflict with one another and the
law, is the rule of justice and protects only certain interests.
3. John Salmond – Salmond defines right as an interest recognised and protected
by a rule or justice. He says, for an interest to be regarded as a legal right, it
should obtain not merely legal protection but also recognition. The law protects
cruelty against animals, and to some interest the interest of animals, but animals
do not possess any legal rights. 
4. Holland – Legal rights were defined by Holland as the “capacity residing in one
man of controlling, with the assent and assistance of the state the actions of
others.” He followed Austin’s definition
5. Gray – He defined a legal right as “that power which a man has to make a
person or persons do or refrain from doing a certain act or certain acts, so far as
the power arises from society imposing a legal duty upon a person or persons.”
He states that the “right is not the interest itself, it is the means to enjoy the
interest secured.”
6. Supreme Court of India – The Apex Court of India defined legal right in the
case of State of Rajasthan v. Union of India [AIR (1977) SC 1361] as: “In strict
sense, legal rights are correlatives of legal duties and are defined as interests
whom the law protects by imposing corresponding duties on others. but in a
 generic sense, the word ‘right’ is used to mean an immunity from the legal
power of another, immunity is exemption from the power of another in the
same way as liberty is exemption from the right of another, Immunity, in short,
is no subjection.”
THEORIES OF LEGAL RIGHTS

There exist two main theories of legal rights – 1. The Will Theory and 2. The Interest
Theory.
The Will Theory of Legal Rights –

The Will Theory states that right is an inherent attribute of the human will. It says that
the purpose of the law is to allow the free expression of human will. This theory was
advocated by scholars like Hegel, Kant, Hume and so on. The subject matter is
derived from human will. Austin, Holland and Pollock define rights in terms of will.
According to the famed French Jurist, John Locke “the basis of the right is the will of
the individual.” Puchta defined the legal right a power over an object which by means
of right can be subjected to the will of the person enjoying the right. This theory has
been widely accepted by the jurists in Germany.

Despite its wide acceptance, there were many scholars who disagreed with it. Some of
the criticisms were from Duguit who is opposed to the “will” theory. According to
him the basis of law is the objective fact of “social solidarity” and not the subjective
will. The law is to protect only those acts or rights which further “social solidarity”.
He calls the theory of subjective right a a mere metaphysical abstraction.
The Interest Theory of Legal Rights

The Interest Theory was proposed by the German Jurist, Rudolf von Jhering. Jhering
defined rights as legally protected interest. Jhering does’ not emphasize on the
element of will in a legal right. He asserts that the basis of legal right is “interest” and
“not will”. The main object of law is protection of human interests and to avert
conflict between their individual interest. These interests are not created by the state,
but they exist in

the life of the community itself. Salmond supported it but mentioned that
enforceability is also an essential element. He says, “Rights are concerned with
interest, and indeed have been defined as interests protected by rules of right, that is
by moral or legal rights.”

Salmond has criticized Jhering’s theory on the ground that it is incomplete since it
completely overlooks the element of recognition by the state. A legal right should not
only be protected by the state but should also be legally recognized by it. Gray stated
that the theory was only partially correct. He emphasized that a legal right is not an
interest in itself but it is only a means to extend protection to interests. He considers
legal right as that power by which a man makes other persons do or refrain from doing
a certain act by imposing a legal duty upon them through the agency of law “state”.

Both these theories are not opposed to each other, it is rather a combination of both
that is correct. Dr. Allen has tried to blend these two theories by pointing out that the
essence of legal right seems to be, not legally guaranteed power by itself nor legally
protected interest by itself, but the legally guaranteed power to realise an interest.
Thus, it would be sensible to say that both “will” and “interest” are essential
ingredients of a legal right.
ELEMENTS OF A LEGAL RIGHT

According to Sir John Salmond, each legal right has 5 essential elements –
1. The Person of Inherence – It is also known as the subject of right. A legal
right is always vested in a person who may be distinguished, as the owner of
the right, the subject of it or the”person of inherence”. Thus, there cannot be a
legal right without a subject or a person who owns it. The subject means the
person in whom the right is vested or the holder of the right. There can be no
right without a subject. A right without a subject or a person who owns it is
inconceivable. The owner of the right, however, need not be certain or
determinate. A right can be owned by the society, at large, is indeterminate.
2. The Person of Incidence – A legal right operates against a person who is
under the obligation to obey or respect that right. He is the “person of
incidence”. He is a person bound by the duty or the subject of the duty.
3. Contents of the Right – The act or omission which is obligatory on the person
bound in favour of the person entitled. This is called the context or substance of
 right. It obliges a person to act or forbear in favour of the person who is entitled
to the right. It may also be known as the substance of the right
4. Subject matter of Right – It is something to which the act or omission relates,
that is the thing over which a right is exercised. This may be called the object
or subject-matter of the right. Some writers, although argue that there are
certain rights which have no objects.
5. Title of the Right – Salmond has given the fifth element also, that is, “title”.
He says that “every legal right has a title, that is to say, certain facts or events
by reason of which the right has become vested in its owner”.

Hence, it can be observed every right involves a three-fold relation, in which it stands
I. It is a right against some person or persons.
II. It is a right to some act or omission of such person or persons.
III. It is a right over to something to which that act or omission relates

The terms of ‘person’, ‘act’, ‘thing’ are connected with the term ‘Right.’

A popular illustration that was quoted by Salmond satisfies all the above mentioned
elements of legal rights. It is as follows –

“If A buys , a piece of land from B, A is the subject or owner of the right so acquired.
The persons bound by the correlative right are persons in general, for a right of this
kind avails against all the world. The context of the right consists in non-interference
with the purchaser’s exclusive use of the land. The object or subject-matter of the
right is the land. And finally, the title of the right is the conveyance by which it was
acquired from its former owner”
KINDS OF LEGAL RIGHTS

Jurists have classified legal rights in the following ways –

1. Primary and Secondary Rights
2. Public and Private Rights
3. Positive and Negative Rights
4. Vested and Contingent Rights
5. Perfect and Imperfect Rights
6. Principal and Accessory Rights
 7. Legal and Equitable Rights
8. Proprietary and Personal Rights
9. Rights in Rem and Rights in Personam
10. Rights in re Propria and Rights in re Aliena
Primary and Secondary Rights –

Primary Rights are also called antecedent rights. It is vested within a person by law or
any other legal manner. These are the bundles of those rights which are the privileges
enjoyed by any person e.g. a person’s rights to Liberty.

A violation or breach of the primary rights, on the other hand, gives rise to a
sanctioning right or remedial right. These are also known as secondary rights. It is
also called the remedial or adjectival rights. It is called so as it is a mode of legal
enforcement, for the loss of the primary right. It is subdivided into two kinds – 1.
Right to exact and receive a pecuniary penalty from the defendant for loss of right and
2. Right to exact and receive damage for the injury caused to the defendant. It can be
said that primary rights exists independently whereas secondary rights have no
separate existence and arise only on violation of primary rights.
Public and Private Rights

Legal rights can be considered as both public and private. Public rights are those
vested with the state. The state enforces such right as a representative of the subjects
in public interest. A public right is possessed by every member of the public. For
example, a right that is concerned with the Government may be termed as a public
right such as the right to vote. A private right, on the other hand, is concerned with
individuals, that is both the parties connected with it are private persons. For example,
owning a vehicle is a private right.
Positive and Negative Rights

A right is considered as positive or negative depending upon its correlative duty. A

positive right exists when the owner of it is entitled to something to be done by the
person of incidence. A person possessing a positive right can compel the person with
the duty to perform a positive act. For instance, a right to receive a compensation is a
positive right. A negative right corresponds to a negative duty and is a right that the
person bound shall refrain from some act which would operate to the prejudice of the
entitled; in other words, a negative right, corresponds a negative duty. It is a right of
the person and the person bound shall restrain from doing some act which will be
prejudicial to the person entitled, such as when a person owns a land, it is the duty of
others to not trespass.

Every person is entitled to negative rights, but only a few get positive rights. The
number of negative rights is larger than the positive rights. The difference between
these rights is illustrated below –
1. A positive right corresponds to a positive duty whereas a negative right
corresponds to a negative duty.
2. A positive right involves a positive act while a negative right involves some
kind of forbearance or not doing.
3. A positive right entitles the owner of it to an alteration of the present position to
his advantage whereas a negative right seeks to maintain the present position of
things.
4. A positive right aims at some positive benefit but a negative right aims at not to
be harmed.
5. A positive right requires an active involvement of others but a negative right
requires only positive acquiescence of other persons.
6. A positive right receives something more than what one already has whereas a
negative right seeks to retain what one already has.
7. A positive right has a mediate and indirect relation to the object while a
negative right is immediately related to the object.
Vested and Contingent Rights

A vested right is a right in respect of which all events essential to vest the right in the
owner have happened; while a contingent right is one in respect of which only some
of the events necessary to vest the right have happened and the vesting can be
complete only on the happening or non-happening of a specified uncertain event. A
vested right is not dependent upon the fulfillment of any condition and a right
becomes contingent only on the fulfillment of any condition that may either be
subsequent or precedent. Vested rights are transferable and inheritable, this is not
possible in contingent rights.
Perfect and Imperfect Rights – A perfect right is one which corresponds to a perfect
duty and a perfect duty is one which is not only recognized by the law but is enforced
also. Perfect right means the complete right, which signifies the right for which there
is remedy also. This is explained by the latin maxim “ubi jus ibi remedium” which
means, where there is a right, there is a remedy. When in case of the breach the right
is not enforceable in a court of law then it is known as imperfect right. This was stated
in the case of Allen v. Waters & Co. [(1935) 1 KB 200]. The Directive Principles of
the State Policy that is present in the Indian Constitution is an example of imperfect
rights.
Principal and Accessory Rights

A principal right is a primary right of a person vested in him by the law of the land, or
through any other legal method. An accessory right is a right which is connected with
the principal right. Principal rights exist independently while accessory rights are
dependent upon principal rights. They are beneficial on the principal right.
Legal and Equitable Rights

These type of legal rights cannot be found in India. It is found only in England. Legal
rights are those which were recognized by the Courts of Common Law in England and
Equitable rights are those which were solely recognized in the Court of Chancery. The
underlying principle in regards to equitable rights is that when there are two
inconsistent equitable rights claimed by different persons over the same thing, the first
in time shall prevail. Although, where there is a conflict between a legal right and an
equitable right, the legal right shall take precedence over equitable right even if it is
subsequent to the equitable right in origin. The Privy Council in Chatra Kumari Devi
v. Mohan Bikram [(1931) 58 I.A 279] observed that the Indian law does not
recognized legal and equitable estates.
Proprietary and Personal Rights

Proprietary Rights are rights that are related to a person’s property whilst personal
rights relate to one’s body. Proprietary rights are transferable and personal rights are
not. If the breach of a right can be measured in terms of money or it has money value
than it is said that the person has proprietary right but if the breach of a right cannot be
measured in money or it has no money value that that right is known or called as
personal right. A personal right is uninheritable and dies with him.
Rights in Rem and Rights in Personam

These are also called real and personal rights. The modem terms right “in rem” and
right “in personam” have been generalized, somewhat inaccurately, from Roman
sources. A right in rem means a right available against the whole world whereas a
right in personam is a right that is available only against specific number of people.

Rights in re Propria and Rights in re Aliena

Rights in re Propria and Rights in re Aliena are a classification of proprietary rights.

Right in re Propria is the right in his own thing and if he has a right in the property
belonging to another than he is said to have a right in re Aliena. A right in re-
Aliena ‘or encumbrance”’ has been defined by Salmond as one

which limits or derogates from some more general right belonging to some other

person in respect of the same subject-matter. Salmond refers to four classes of

encumbrances, namely, i) Leases; ii) Servitudes; iii) Securities & iv) Trusts.

i) Leases – A lease is an encumbrance of property vested in one person by a right to

the possession and use of it vested in another person.

ii) Servitude – A servitude is a right to the limited use of a piece of land

unaccompanied

either by the ownership or possession of it.

iii) Security – Security is an encumbrance vested in a creditor over the property of his

debtor for the purpose of securing the recovery of the debt.

iv) Trust – A trust is an encumbrance in which the ownership of property is limited

by an equitable obligation to deal with it for the benefit of someone else. The owner
of the encumbered property is called the trustee and the owner of the encumbrance is
the beneficiary of tire trust.
ENFORCEMENT OF LEGAL RIGHTS

A legal right may be enforced through a Court of Law that has been established by the
State. A legal right is generally enforced by awarding damages in civil cases. IF
damages don’t suffice, the object itself may be restored. Specific performances may
also be ordered by the court. Alternatively, the court may grant an injunction for the
enforcement of a legal right. The law of injunction is mentioned in Specific Relief
Act, 1963. It is a prohibitive writ which restrains a party from doing an act that affects
the plaintiff from enjoying his legal right.
DUTY
A duty is an obligatory act. It is something to do or abstain from doing in favour of
another person. A man has a duty towards any matter that he is legally obligated to.
The term legal duty has been defined in the following ways –
1. Keaton – A duty is an act of forbearance which is enforced by the state in
respect of a right vested in another and breach of which is a wrong.
2. Salmond – A duty is roughly speaking an act which one ought to do, an act the
opposite of which would be a wrong.
A duty is of two kinds – 1.  Moral and 2.  Legal

Moral – An act that is the opposite of which is a moral or natural wrong. A duty may
be

moral but not legal or legal but not moral, or both at once. For example, the act of not
wasting paper is our moral duty but not legal.

Legal – A legal duty is an act, the opposite of which is a legal wrong. It is an

act recognized as a duty by law and treated as such for the administration of justice.
The law enforced the performance of a legal duty, and punishes the disregard of its
performance.
CLASSIFICATION OF DUTIES
Duties are classified under the following categories –
Primary and Secondary Duties –

A primary duty is one which exists “per se” and is independent of any other duty. A
secondary duty, on the other hand, is one which has no independent existence of other
duties. A secondary duty is also called sanctioning or a remedial duty.
Positive and Negative Duties

Duties may also be distinguished into positive and negative duties. Duties that are to
be performed by us at the behest of the law is known as a positive duty whilst an act
that is prohibited from being performed under the law is a negative duty.
Absolute and Relative Duties

In the words of Austin, rights and duties are interdependent. He has classified duties
into absolute and relative. Relative duties are those for which there is a corresponding
right and absolute duties are those that do not have any corresponding rights. He
mentions four kinds of absolute duties:-
 Self-regarding duties such as a duty not to commit suicide or not to consume
drugs or liquor, etc.
 Duties towards indeterminate persons or public at large, e.g. a duty not to
commit a nuisance.
 Duties to those who are not human beings such as duty towards God or
animals, birds, etc.
 A duty towards the sovereign or the state.
RIGHTS AND DUTIES

It is an agreed fact that rights and duties are co-existent. Although there is exists a
difference in opinion whether there must be a right that correlates to the duty.

Salmond says that there can be no right without a corresponding duty and vice versa.
According to this, every duty must be a duty towards a person or some person, in
whom a correlative right is vested and conversely every right must be a right against
some persons upon whom, a correlative duty is imposed. Every right and duty has a
bond of legal obligation. Austin has stated that rights are interdependent, not
 correlative, contrary to Salmond’s opinions. He has classified them into relative and
absolute duties as explained above.
Legal Rights jurisprudence notes
There can be on duty without a right and According to Hibbert “a right is one
person’ capacity of obliging others to do or forbear by means not of his own
strength but by the strength of a third party. If such third parts is God, the right
is Divine. If such third parts is the public generally acting though opinion, the
right is moral. If such third parts is the stale acting directly or indirectly, the
right is legal.”

Definition Of Legal Right

The term legal right has been used in two senses: 
Restricted Or Popular Sense:
According to Gray:A legal is that powers which a man has to take a person or
person do or refrain form doing a certain act or certain acts, so far as the power
arises form society imposing a legal duty upon a person or persons. 
Wider Sense:
In a wide sense, legal right include any legally recognized interest whether it
corresponds to a legal duty or not. It is an addition or benefit conferred upon a
person by a rule of law.

Kinds Of Legal Rights:

Following are the kinds of legal rights:
 Perfect right
 Imperfect right
 Real And Personal Rights
 Rights In Rem And Rights In Personam
 Proprietary And Personal Rights
 Inheritable And Uninheritable Rights
 Rights In Repropria And Rights In Re Aliena
 Principal And Accessory Rights
 Legal And Equitable Rights
 Primary And Secondary Rights
 Public And Private Rights
 Vested And Contingent Rights
 Servient And Dominant Rights
 Municipal And International Rights
 Rights At Rest And Rights In Motion
 Ordinary And Fundamental Rights
 Jus Ad Rem

Perfect right:
According to salmond, a perfect right is one which corresponds to a perfect duty
I .e., which is enforced by law.
Example:
A contract specically enforceable through the Court of law is an example of
perfect right.

Imperfect right:
An imperfect right is that which is recognized by law but cannot be enforced by
law due to some impediment. These may be turn into perfect rights.
 Positive right:
A positive right corresponds positive duty and the person subject to the duty is
bound to do something.
 Negative right:
Negative right corresponds to negative duties. The enjoyment of negative rights
is complete unless such interference takes place.

Real And Personal Rights:

 Real right:
According to salomond, a real right corresponds to a duty imposed upon persons
in general. It available against whole word. Real rights are generally a negative
rights as the duties which can be expected form the whole world are of a
negative character.
Example:
I have a right to be deprived of my life is a real right as it is available against the
whole world.
 Personal right:
A personal right corresponds to a duty imposed upon determinate individuals. It
 against a particular person. Personal rights are generally positive right as it
imposes a duty on a particular person to do something.
Example:
I have a personal right to receive compensation form any individual who is any
harms me.

Rights In Rem And Rights In Personam:

 Rights in Rem:
It is derived form the Roman term action in Rem” . It is available the whole
world Examples are rights of ownership and possession. My right of possession
and ownership is protected by law against all those who those may interfere
with the same.
 Rights in Personam:
It is derived form the Roman term “ action in personam,” Right in personam
corresponds to duty imposed upon determinate persons.
Example: 
Rights under a contract are right in Personam as the parties to the contract alone
are bound by it.

Proprietary And Personal Rights:

 Proprietary Right:
The proprietary rights of a person include his estate, his assets and his property
in many forms. They have some economic or monetary value. They possess
both judicial and economic importance.
Example:
The right to debt, the right to goodwill etc.
‘
 Personal right:
Personal right pertain to man, s status or standing in the law. They promote the
man, s well being. Personal rights possess merely judicial importance.
Example:
Right to life, reputation etc are personal rights.

Inheritable And Uninheritable Rights:

 Inheritable Rights:
Inheritable rights are those which survives its owners.
Example:
‘A’ dies leaves his property him ‘B’ his legal heir becomes owner of such
property. This is an inheritable right.
 Uninheritable right:
A right is uninheritable if it dies with its owners e. g. personal rights die with its
owner and cannot be inherit.

Rights In Repropria And Rights In Re Aliena:

 Rights in Re Propria:
Rights in Re propria are rights in one, s own property. These are complete rights
to which other right can be attached.
Example:
The owner of a chattel has a right in re propria over it.
 Right in Re aliena:
Rights is Re aliena are rights over the property of another person. These rights
derogate form the rights of another person and add to the rights of their holder.
Example:
My right of way across the land another person is a right re aliena.

Principal And Accessory Rights:

 Principal rights
Principal rights exist independently of other rights. Accessory rights are
appurtenant to other rights and they have a beneficial on the principal rights.
Example:
‘X’ owes money to ‘Y’ and he executes a mortgage deed in favour of ‘Y’. the
debt is the principal right and the security in the form of mortgage is the
accessory right.

Legal And Equitable Rights:

 Legal Rights:
Legal rights are those which were recognized by common Law Court e. g., right
to vote etc.
 Equitable Rights:
Equitable rights are those which were recognized by the Court of chancery.
Example:
The right of the mortgagor to redeem the property is regarded as a creation of
the Courts of equity and is an equitable right knows as the equity of redemption.

Primary And Secondary Rights:

 Primary Rights:
Primary rights are also called antecedent, sanctioned or enjoyment rights. These
are those rights which are independent of a wrong having been committed. They
exist for own sake. They are antecedent to be wrongful act or omission.
Example:
Right of reputation, Right to life etc.
 Secondary Rights:
Secondary rights are also called sanctioning, restitutory or remedial rights.
Secondary rights are a part of the machinery provided by the state of the redress
of injury done to the primary rights. Their necessity arises on account of the fact
that primary rights are very often violated by the persons.
Example:
Rights to obtain compensation for defamation to person.

Public And Private Rights: Public rights:

 Public rights:
A public right is possessed by every member of the public. It is between a state
and the private individual e. g. , right to vote etc.
 Private right:
A private right is concerned only with the individuals. Both the parties
connected with the right are private persons e.g., contract entered into by two
individuals.

Vested And Contingent Rights:

 Vested right:
A vested is a right in right in respect of which all events necessary to vest it
completely in the owner have happened. No other conditions remains to be
satisfied. 
 Example:
If a valid deed of transfer is executed by ;A; in favour of ‘B’, ‘B’ acquires a
vested right.
 Contingent right:
According to paton when part of the in vestitive acts have occurred, the right is
contingent until the appening of all the facts on which the title depends.
Example:
‘A’ executes a deed in favour of ‘B’ according to which he entitles to the
possession of certain property when attains the age of 21, the right is contingent
right and it will be vested only when he attains the age of 21.s

Servient And Dominant Rights:

A servient right is one which is subject to an encumbrance. The encumbrance
which derogates form it may be contrasted as dominant.
Example:
“X” as the owner of certain house a right of way over the land of ‘Y’ , his
neighbor. The house of ‘X’ is the dominant heritage and ‘X’ is the dominant
owner. The house of ‘Y’ is the servient heritage and ‘Y’ is the servient owner.

Municipal And International Rights:

 Municipal rights:
Municipal right are conferred by the law of a country, it is enjoyed by the
individuals living in a country.
 International rights:
International rights are conferred by international law. The subject of the
International rights are the persons recognized as such by International law.

Rights At Rest And Rights In Motion:

According to Holland, when a right is stated with reference to its ‘orbit’ and its
“ infringement’, it is a right at rest. “Orbit’ means the extent of advantages
conferred by such right and infringement means an act which interference with
the enjoyment of those advantages. Causes by which rights are either connected
or disconnected with persons are discussed under rights in motion.

Ordinary And Fundamental Rights:

Some rights are ordinary and some are fundamental rights. The distinction
between the two lies that fundamental rights are often guaranteed by the
onstitution i. e., right to life, liberty etc.

Jus Ad Rem:
A jus ad rem is a right to right. It is always a right in personam.
Example:
If ‘A’ sell his house to ‘B’. ‘B’ acquires a right against ‘A’ to have the house
transferred to himself.

Conclusion:
To conclude, I can say, that legal rights are those which are conferred by the
state on certain individuals and imposes corresponding duties on others. It is
enforced by the physical force of the state. It is been classified into different
kinds according to their scope by various authors.